Leaked draft opinion on Roe V Wade
Essentially, the majority has confirmed what I have held for years, that regardless of whether Roe v Wade was a wise decision or not, it was not the court’s place to make it. The Constitution reserves the making of law to the legislatures.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
It is news tonight, at least on the cable news channel I watch. A leak of SCOTUS working papers is a huge compromise of the institution. No one should be in favor of such a thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. A serious breach of protocol.
LikeLike
I am just guessing, of course, but Roberts may have arranged a leak to test the waters on such an impactful and extremely rare decision to overturn “settled law”.
Interestingly, all those reassurances from recent appointees about stare decisis and respect for long standing laws were apparently lies.
What else is new?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If stare decisis was absolute, Dred Scott and Plessy v Fergusson would still be law.
LikeLike
Why did I know this would be brought up. Of course SCOTUS is not perfect so each case needs to be judged on its own merits.
In a mobile society like ours, having 50 different criminal codes may not be the system we should continue to use.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then ask your Congressman to codify Roe nationwide. The point here is that the decision belongs with the legislative branch and always has. At whatever level.
But with the availability of birth control, this should not be the issue it was when Roe was handed down anyway. The real question is why anyone would need an abortion with the availability of birth control what it now is.
LikeLike
Abortions have dropped dramatically since Roe. But birth control is next. The anti-abortion crowd does not accept the most efficacious forms of birth control because they are considered abortifacients.
Some say Griswold was a bad decision.
State control of the uterus and forced pregnancies are the goal for them.
When leaders in some states, like Ohio, say that a raped, impregnated teen has an “opportunity” or that ectopic pregnancies should be re-implanted, we are not dealing with rational people.
So if you are poor, just have the baby and deal with it. If you have means, get your abortion and move on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abortion is legal in VA by state law.
But if there is ever an attempt to limit birth control, I will be opposed.
But abortion is a lousy method of birth control. and there are not a million and a half special cases a year, so clearly many people use it instead of birth control.
LikeLike
“… so clearly many people use it instead of birth control.”
It is a terrible method of birth control. And I don’t think many women prefer that.
So education and affordable access should be an important segue to this ruling. Apparently, that is not the case now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That also is not the job of the court, but of the legislature.
LikeLike
How many times are we told not to judge the days of old by the standards of today?
LikeLike
As to who leaked it, I suspect it is more likely a Democrat staffer hoping the issue will distract voters from the trainwreck of the Democrat party policy and save them in the midterms.
LikeLike
Soros, the bastard, he got to Roberts 😇
LikeLiked by 1 person
…” I suspect it is more likely a Democrat staffer”…
How would it be a “Democratic staffer”? Why could it not be a Republican staffer trying to get the base all HAPPY?
LikeLike
Because Napoleon
LikeLike
Because you believe NAYTHING that is wrong is the fault of the Democrats.
LikeLike
Not sure what you’re getting at.
This decision or leak does not aid the GOP, the Democrats were doing an excellent job of destroying themselves and there was no benefit to distracting them.
LikeLike
…”does not aid the GOP, “…
Right. They didn’t need to do anything else to prove that they are the party who wants to control anything that isn’t white, male and straight.
LikeLike
If this memo is like the final opinion it could be Democrats invoking Napoleon.
Republicans will be all over the place trying to appease women centrist conservatives and Independents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Not sure what you’re getting at.”
Let me try to clear for you.
If something you disagree with or is truly BAD, it is the fault of the Democrats. However, you find ways around blaming Republicans for doing anything wrong.
LikeLike
Agreed, I wonder who leaked it?
LikeLike
Ross Douthat @NYT, one of Mr. Roberts’ anointed modern religious commenters from a couple of years back, included this as a POSSIBLE theory:
…”plenty of decisions have changed between the initial vote and the final ruling, including the Obamacare decision in 2012 (where Roberts switched sides) and Casey itself (where Anthony Kennedy wrote the decision upholding abortion rights after initially voting to overturn Roe). And in this case, it always seemed imaginable that an initial stark split would give way, through some kind of intra-judicial persuasion, to the kind of minimalist ruling that Roberts in particular favors.
So if you were simply following a crude strategic logic, the fact that what’s been leaked is a draft from months ago might suggest that a leaker on the conservative side hopes to freeze a wavering justice — Kavanaugh being the obvious candidate — into their initial vote, by making it seem like the very credibility of the court rests on their not being perceived to cave under external pressure.”
Not everyone has access to The Times, so I am only including this one section. Most of the rest of his piece was about it being a Left side leak, which is just as plausible.
Whoever the leaker is is more than likely done in the legal profession. However, I am sure they will pick up a lobbying gig down the road.
LikeLike
“No one should be in favor of such a thing.”
You got that one right.
LikeLike
I don’t understand the fear from the lefty ghouls on this. It will be left up to the states as it always should have been. They’ll always have California and New York as liberal drop off stations for abortions. East and west locations. Convenient.
LikeLike
I don’t think it was ever about the issue itself it is more about exciting their base.
LikeLike
Abortion has always been the “base exciter” for conservatives. You got that part right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, excuse us if the murder of babies upsets us.
Always consider what an issue looks like from the other side. If you believed abortion was infanticide, which many people sincerely believe, would it not motivate you?
LikeLike
Your smug flippancy is an effort to dismiss women’s’ right to choose with moral superiority regardless of circumstances.
95% of abortions are during the first trimester. Late term are almost always for medical reasons.
But debating abortion on its merits is pointless. With the vast majority of Americans agreeing that abortion per Roe should be available in the first trimester, it will be interesting to follow the political trail in years to come. Though the caveat is that red states will outlaw abortion anyway.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/25/majority-of-americans-support-abortion-poll-finds—but-not-later-in-the-pregnancy/?sh=68f45a8f5074
What is even more interesting is whether states can prevent its residents from leaving the state for an abortion. That would really start a trend of split justice for Americans, particularly the low income quintiles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If it remains a state issue, I expect a consensus will form over time.
But Congress can act too.
LikeLike
Congress might act, but it would have to be quick.
We will know in a few weeks anyway, leak or no leak.
I suspect the hornet’s nest will fire up the left a lot more than the right. Republicans gleefully wringing their hands over a win, will have to convince a majority of Americans that forced pregnancy is good for women come the midterms.
Already (before the leak) we are hearing leaders on the right touting “opportunities” for rape and incest victims and ectopic re-implants.
The last time a Republican tried to sell rape “benefits” it did not go well for him.
CRT and gays may not be enough.
The optimist in me thinks that the forced pregnancy lobby will have short lived victory dances. Democrats may even keep Congress and be able to codify Roe or a version of it.
A majority of Americans, 61%, and a vast majority, 82%, of the majority party approve of first trimester abortions. Women today are not the second class citizens they were 50 years ago.
And CRT, vaccines, gays all seemed so solid for a win this year.
Now, maybe not so much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
15 weeks, which is the line drawn by many Red states, is well over first trimester.
LikeLike
“I expect a consensus will form over time.”
The consensus HAS formed. A MAJORITY of the public do NOT want ROE overturned.
LikeLike
Then they can codify Roe as their law.
LikeLike
Not without abandoning the filibuster in the Senate.
LikeLike
“Then they can codify Roe as their law.”
The PUBLIC MAJORITY have NO power to codify dick.
LikeLike
Making new Federal law nullifying state law is intentionally difficult, for good reason.
LikeLike
“What is even more interesting is whether states can prevent its residents from leaving the state for an abortion. ”
There are already some bills being introduced in several GOP led states to do just that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Your smug flippancy is an effort to dismiss women’s’ right to choose with moral superiority regardless of circumstances.” 🎤drop!
LikeLike
” East and west locations. Convenient.”
Yeah, real convenient if you live in Kansas, the Dakotas (why are there 2?) or any place else that isn’t on the coasts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is a poor person’s abortion prohibition law. You can bet that if a Republican of means knocks up his campaign staffer, funds will be available for a vacation in sunny Hartford, CT.
Meanwhile, the midterms have an issue that diminishes CRT and gay bashing.
Don’t piss off women, they are not all happy about this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, poor women can always use birth control. (other than the rare case of rape)
LikeLike
Yes, if they have access and knowledge.
Get rid of Roe, but let’s make a real effort to get birth control to everyone regardless of circumstances. And that has not been a Republican plank. Ever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…”(other than the rare case of rape”
And the majority of state laws being passed do not allow an exception for rape.
LikeLike
Why should they?
When did we start executing children for the crimes of their fathers?
Once there is a person present, the only justification for killing it is self defense that would qualify killing a born child.
LikeLike
“When did we start executing children for the crimes of their fathers?”
So FORCING a woman to carry a baby she does not want, nor voluntarily participated in the creation of, is FORCED to carry the result of the crime committed, is not punishment of the mother? That is disturbing, to say the least. There are a lot of other words I could use, but as you reminded us the other day, your grandchildren read this.
“Once there is a person present”…
There is no “person present” until birth.
LikeLike
When a person is present is not up to you, or to me, alone, as it is a question of definition. Such determinations can only be made for legal purposes by the consensus of the legislatures.
It is terrible for a woman to have to carry the child of a rapist, but that wrong is done to her by her rapist, not by the baby.
The baby is as much the victim as she is.
LikeLike
Sorry, but the mother is much more so the victim. Her life is CHANGED completely by the presence of an unwanted pregnancy. Why should SHE be forced to carry, care for and love something that is wrought of a crime committed against her?
If the mother is allowed to terminate the pregnancy (prior to viability), she remains the only victim. The parasite inside of her is removed.
LikeLike
The baby’s life is pretty much changed if she kills it.
YOU draw the line at viability. Others at conception.
Do you get to force your threshold on everyone else or do they? What makes you special?
That is why such questions can only be answered by the consensus of the legislatures as that is where we have placed our trust to make law. Not you, not me, not Justice Warren, not the Pope.
LikeLike
“What makes you special?”
Back atcha, Don.
LikeLike
The difference is that I am not claiming my opinion should be law unless I can persuade the legislature to adopt it.
You are.
LikeLike
The actual difference is MY opinion is that women should have the right to choose. YOUR opinion is that women should be forced into something they don’t want.
LikeLike
Only if what they want is to murder babies.
LikeLike
The continued equating of abortion as murder is one of the priamary reason no legislative consensus can be found.
Forcing the mother into something she doesn’t want is SLAVERY.
LikeLike
And killing a self-aware unborn baby is murder.
Pregnancy resulting from rape makes up less than 1% of abortions and there is no reason those cases cannot be dealt with early in pregnancy.
In all other cases, the mother invited the baby aboard.
LikeLike
…”the mother invited the baby aboard.”
You forget one key thing: It takes two to tango. Putting ALL of the responsibility on the mother is a very mysoginistic thought.
LikeLike
If the guy was trying to kill the baby, I’d stop him too.
LikeLike
Plus, it is a wonderful “opportunity” for a rape victim, in this case the hypothetical 13 year old asked of a Republican state office holder in Ohio.
Forced pregnancy is another way to control women. Carrying a fetus to term for young teens, poor families, those carrying fetuses with no brain, 1/2 a heart, and rape victims does no one, including society, any good other than placate those who want to force beliefs on others.
Barefoot and pregnant might be nostalgic, but women are not second class citizens like they used to be as recently as mid last century.
If we are going to enforce every pregnancy whether unintended, forced, severely disabled, unaffordable, then we need to reconsider who is paying for and raising the child if born. That is only fair to the child that the anti-abortion lobby is so concerned about. This is particularly true if birth control is not universally available to all. Or worse, outlawed as abortifacients.
Another angle is that the natural world aborts between a third to a half of all pregnancies. It will also ensure that severe disabilities will not survive and orphaned babies don’t survive if no one steps in to raise them. So if we want to bypass the natural world, which we do through medicine and science already, then we should at least provide succor as a society. If not, then we are just placating ourselves for political power and religious fervor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well then, does the rape victim who does not get pregnant get to go to the nursery and murder a random baby there?
How is it different?
The baby didn’t rape her. Yes, she is the victim of a terrible crime, and an emergency D&C is entirely appropriate. But once there is a person there, it has the right to the protection of the Rule of Law.
LikeLike
First trimester works for the rape victim. But the zealots won’t even allow that.
Plus who is going to raise the child. You?
If society demands that rape victims must bear the child to term does that make the victim obligated to raise him.
If society demands that a fetus without a brain or equivalent defect has to be carried to term does the family have a obligation to pay until he dies regardless of circumstances or financial ability.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have no real problem with euthanasia with proper safeguards, but that requires a high bar.
But the idea that it’s OK to kill a child because no one wants to support it goes down a dark road.
The Mississippi case at issue before SCOTUS is 15 weeks, far more than first trimester. What states are you worried about that don’t give a woman who has been raped time to act?
LikeLike
I am not worried. Your grandchildren might, however.
Most women don’t even know if they are pregnant until 6 weeks in. If abortion is banned, including the wonderful “opportunity” afforded by rape, who will support him or her?
You are dodging the question. It is about allowing abortion in the first trimester, per Roe, or later per medical necessity.
Forcing women to carry to term regardless of circumstances is immoral and inhumane. I have mentioned that viability at about 23 or weeks might require medical necessity to prevent needless suffering from a massive birth defect.
To me, if someone knows that the resulting child will die in a few days, weeks, months or even years as a totally dependent person in pain or ventilated with no expectation of surviving is as immoral as torturing a person to death.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I already said I had no problem with properly guarded euthanasia.
And I have repeatedly written that had the framework imposed by Roe been enacted by the legislature, I could live with it, or probably go to the legislature to seek some tweaks more in line with my philosophy.
But for almost 50 years, we have not been able to have this debate. Roe has trumped any legislative consensus, leaving only the extremes.
LikeLike
The fervor to outlaw abortion and birth control, even to the extent of trying to outlaw state residents to travel to another state for procedures.
Does a state actually own a woman because she resides there?
The good news is that the 26 states are overplaying their hand in my opinion and the backlash will cost them at the midterms.
Already a Democrat has won a seat in Michigan in a special election that has been Republican for 3 decades, went for Trump by 15 points or more. And the Democrat won hugely, 56-40 I think.
The GOP candidate was a “if raped, lean back and enjoy it” kind of jerk. So it could be construed as a one off. But, there are a lot of forced pregnancy fanatics and they are not satisfied until every woman is chattel.
Again, my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who is it you think is advocating any of that?
LikeLike
It has popped up as proposals in several states. Probably not workable and may not pass except in the reddest of states.
But for your reading pleasure at a site I know you probably check:
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/gop-red-states-lawmakers-abortion/2022/03/15/id/1061247/
LikeLiked by 1 person
They can try, but it won’t work,
Like the Mann Act, they would be unconstitutional. (which will probably be next to go)
LikeLike
Kind of like the Fugitive Slave Laws.
“Extradite the woman to face justice in our state. (We have her family, too, for icing on the cake.”
Silly? Maybe, but then so is state sponsored lawsuits against drivers who might take a woman to a clinic. Or arresting women who had miscarriages. Or proposing re-implanting an ectopic pregnancy. These are real and have already happened.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have any of those passed?
One of the toxic things about Roe is that states wishing a more restrictive regulation have been forced to look for creative ways around Roe, like Texas’s efforts, but with the responsibility returned to their legislatures, devious means will not be needed and the real debate can proceed to find the real will of the citizens.
LikeLike
Not yet, but they are not “man in the street” proposals, but rather Republican leaders.
Cooler heads may prevail, but I doubt it. I think about half of present day abortions are self-induced via pharmaceuticals. Jailing pregnant women might just be the results.
Red cowls are next? I hope not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, we’re finally going to have the debate, in the legislature, where it belongs.
Laws among states may vary, but consensus will form among them shortly.
LikeLike
Consensus? Really?
We can’t even agree on wearing a simple mask during the height of a deadly pandemic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really? What effect will ending Roe have in Virginia?
LikeLike
What does that have to do with anything? Yet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The point is that in those states where there is the most angst over this, their state laws are already more permissive than Roe anyway,
LikeLike
…”does the rape victim who does not get pregnant get to go to the nursery and murder a random baby there?”
Most idiotic defense in support of forcing a rape victim to carry the result of the crime against her to term, raise it and be responsible for its life.
And it is you is forcing HIS opinion on when a “person” is present.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How is it different?
How is murdering the child of the rapist, who had no part in the rape, different from murdering a random child?
LikeLike
How is taking away a women’s autonomy, forcing her to carry a pregnancy FORCED on her by a criminal act, not slavery?
You are so desperate for the legislatures to control women, your theories have gone off the deep end.
LikeLike
Legislatures control women, and men, all the time.
We pay taxes because the legislature says we must. We refrain from killing annoying neighbors. We don’t steal from grocery stores.
It is proper for the legislature to prohibit us from harming others or taking their stuff.
LikeLike
…”for the legislature to prohibit us from harming others “…
But if they prohibit a woman from having autonomy over her body, they have gone too far.
And as a refresher, I am not advocating for late-term abortion, except in the case of threat of life to the mother. 15 weeks is not unreasonable, especially in the case of rape or incest. But to force a mother to carry a baby to term that she did not want through no fault of her own is more criminal. – IMO
LikeLike
Ok, so what do you do when she shows up wanting an abortion at 20 weeks?
Still her body.
It all comes down to defining when a person is present.
LikeLike
“When did we start executing children for the crimes of their fathers?”
Let me ask you this. If a woman is forced to carry the result of a crime committed against her, who pays for the care of that reminder? The father? If convicted, how will he pay? If not convicted, how can he be forced to pay? And if he’s not convicted, then allegedly no crime has been committed, so therefore, no punishment and no responsibility.
LikeLike
First, I dispute the ‘forced to carry’ allegation. The Mississippi law in question allows 15 weeks. That should be time for a woman to determine she has been raped and impregnated as a result, and intervene legally.
But even so, being NAVY I assume you are familiar with the laws of the sea. If a stowaway is discovered aboard a ship, do you get to throw him overboard? He is there unlawfully and is a burden on your resources?
Nope, You have to carry him to your next safe port to eject him.
Rape is awful, and it is a terrible burden to have to bear a child resulting from it, but the guilty party is not the child.
LikeLike
“That should be time for a woman to determine she has been raped and impregnated as a result, and intervene legally.”
How may times have you been raped? You cannot necessarily expect the crime victim to be reasonable. Half the time, they are afraid to report the crime. It may be 15 weeks before they even come to terms with what happened to them. And then, with health services being shut down in the states, the waiting list grows and the next thing you know it is also past the 15 week threshold.
“If a stowaway is discovered aboard a ship, do you get to throw him overboard? He is there unlawfully and is a burden on your resources?”
He is held and then turned over to the proper authorities at the first available port. HOWEVER, the stowaway will not be a burden for life; a few days at most. Your analogy has no merit.
“Rape is awful, and it is a terrible burden to have to bear a child resulting from it, but the guilty party is not the child.”
Nor it it the mother. Yet if it were up to you, she’s stuck with the daily reminder of the crime commmitted agaisnt her.
LikeLike
Burden for life?
Go to any Wendy’s. They’ll help arrange an adoption. There are thousands of good homes looking for a baby.
LikeLike
Why are there 2?
Why are there not 10?
Texas was admitted with the provision that it could divide into 5 states on its own volition.
LikeLike
I wish it would. I would surmise it would be 3 Republican and 2 Democratic states, but at least it wouldn’t be ONE run by a vocal minority.
LikeLike
I think you misunderstand how profoundly Democrats have alienated the Latino vote.
LikeLike
Latino voters are often culturally conservative and religious. So it is odd for Republicans to say Democrats want to flood the US with southern border immigrants to get more Democrats in 10 years or so.
But for the hard core right wingers, Brown people are not like “us”, conservative or not. European chauvinism and all that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I have written before, I like Mexicans and think we should be more welcoming. They have a great work ethic.
But I don’t think people have considered how wokeness, particularly gender issues, offends them.
Men are Latinos, women are Latinas, collectively they are Latinos, not Latinxs.
All Spanish nouns have gender, machismo is a Latino concept.
Gender confusion is not a concept they see as serious.
So, welcome
LikeLike
If that were the case, why did the GOP legislature pack the in to districts to dilute their vote.
You misunderstand how much swing voters can effect things.
LikeLike
I don’t think the GOP has figured it out yet either.
LikeLike
Should Roe be overturned and when all the dust settles, access to legal abortion will be based on income in about 26 states.
Just like our justice system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, read Alito’s statements.
SCOTUS cannot concern itself with the consequences, It is Constitutional or it is not. Addressing the consequences is the job of the legislative branch.
Enact the results of Roe through Congress if you think it should be nationwide.
LikeLike
Absent a national law, the consequences will be felt chiefly among the poor and low income Americans.
With our system of 50 different states with 50 different laws creates an additional burden on SCOTUS when all Americans are affected.
It may not be the view of some, but major decisions are not done in a vacuum.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was under the impression that one of SCOTUS’ duties was to adjudicate differneces in state laws.
LikeLike
No, It has no authority to do so unless a state violates 14th Amendment rights.
LikeLike
ART. 3, Section 2:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
“to Controversies between two or more States”
Looks like the ORIGINAL TEXT says you are inaccurate.
LikeLike
But where is the controversy between them?
SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction if Alabama were forbidding Georgians from getting abortions after 15 weeks, but not for those inside Alabama.
SCOTUS has no power to impose Georgia’s laws on Alabama.
LikeLike
…”would have original jurisdiction if Alabama were forbidding Georgians from getting abortions after 15 weeks,”
And as is being proposed in several GOP legislatures, if (in your example) an Alabaman travels to Georgia for the medical procedure but then criminalizes the Alabaman for going next door, then would your ORIGINALISM kick in?
LikeLike
The nearest thing I can think of to that would be the Mann Act, which I believe to be patently unconstitutional.
I doubt such an act limiting travel for abortions would be constitutional.
LikeLike
Yet the laws are being proposed, or at least discussed.
LikeLike
Shame on Politico as well.
They should have declined to print it and immediately reported the breach to the court and the FBI.
LikeLike
Why? SCOTUS leaks may be very rare, but remember that it is part of the vast government you are so suspicious of.
Leaks are how we peons get some insight into what our elected decision makers are up to. And if you doubt the Court is political I can sell you a fish finder I just invented. Everyone of the last three appointments were specifically and purposefully done to appease the forced pregnancy conservative voters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SCOTUS should be as free from political pressure as we can manage.
The worst thing about Roe was how it politicized the court, which should be a truly technical arbiter uninfluenced by anything but the law as written.
Perhaps now the court can be apolitical again.
LikeLike
“Perhaps now the court can be apolitical again.”
Another unicorn dream.
LikeLike
There is no criminal statute involved in leaking SCOTUS working papers. No DOJ involvement applies. Chief Justice has the SCOTUS Marshall investigating and the only outcome can be the firing of the leaker. Unless the leaker ends up being one of the justices themselves. Congress could then consider impeachment proceedings, but the outcome would be pretty murky.
LikeLike
The Clerks are law school graduates and would be subject to disbarment for unethical conduct.
LikeLike
Unethical does not equal criminal. I don’t disagree with your statement; just saying that the disbarment would be based on ethics, not crime.
LikeLike
RE: “No DOJ involvement applies.”
Correct. SCOTUS has its own marshal and police force with the authority to make arrests. One of their duties is to protect the property of the Court and the justices. SCOTUS working papers would qualify as property.
LikeLike
But there is NO criminal act involved. Firing and probable disbarment is about the extent of the punishment.
LikeLike
Unless someone lies to the investigators
LikeLike
Stealing property is not criminal?
LikeLike
That’s a stretch when it comes to things like this. Who’s property is it?
LikeLike
RE: “Who’s property is it?”
It is the property of SCOTUS, by law.
LikeLike
And who owns the Supreme Court, the building, pays the staff and the justices?
The leak is a terrible precedent, but the material belongs to all Americans and is not a military secret.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Chesapeake Police have fully automatic M-16s. I don’t need one, but it would be fun to take one to the range for a little entertainment.
Would it be OK for me to take one? After alter all, they belong to the people.
LikeLike
Ask the idiot who was prosecuted for stealing a podium from the House.
LikeLike
LikeLike
I strongly doubt Roberts is involved.
He is a fanatic about the integrity and honor of the court.
LikeLike
But, he is also very aware of the consequences that you dismiss.
ACA comes to mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I strongly doubt Roberts is involved.”
Me, too. Also, after reading and skimming through Alito’s draft, I don’t think the leak is just a garden variety distraction. Overturning Roe on the basis of the arguments Alito presents would be a major cultural inflection point. For example, Alito shows that even common law — the basis of our legal traditions — was anti-abortion.
LikeLike
I don’t read Alito’s comments as pro or anti abortion.
Just very technical reading of the Constitution.
LikeLike
From POLITICO (via Charlie Sykes Morning Shots newsletter):
“Alito’s draft argues that rights protected by the Constitution but not explicitly mentioned in it – so-called unenumerated rights – must be strongly rooted in U.S. history and tradition.”
Which makes one wonder “what’s next?”
LikeLike
So, what are thelibs saying today?
LikeLike
THe Libs of TIKTOK is just a bunch of trolls.
You seem to think there are only extremists on one side of the argument. There are extremists everywhere. You appear to be one of them when it comes to this issue.
LikeLike
I have not seen any on the pro life side with that utter, snarky disregard for the sincerely held values of the other side.
LikeLike
“Baby killers” comes to mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I don’t read Alito’s comments as pro or anti abortion.”
You can’t interpret the Constitution as “pro-abortion” (a la Roe) if, at the time the Constitution was written, the common law wasn’t pro-abortion. That’s the way I read Alito’s argument.
It is an important point, because it undermines the view that the “right to choose” is somehow a natural right, or should be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From what I have read so far, it isn’t even clear if this leak is authentic nor reflective of the final opinion of the court. It smells too much like a campaign ruse to excite liberals in the midterms with Biden leading the charge. Even if the court over turned Roe, it would still be up to Congress or state legislatures to codify abortion rights so these “rights” are far from dead. I’ll wait for the decision….
LikeLike
Roberts has confirmed it is authentic but did not say if it was the final form.
He is also looking for a head for his wall.
LikeLike
Is it illegal to leak memos and the like? Or is it just bad form?
Not talking state secrets, so espionage is out.
I agree that a leak is bad, but what happens if the leaker is exposed?
Again, it is a bit surprising since the ruling will be out in this month anyway.
“Big rally at SCOTUS. Come on out, it will be wild.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is not illegal, but sure is WAY beyond bad form.
How many protesters are carrying zip ties, building gallows and screaming to “Hang Sam Alito”? And when will they be let into the building by Justice Sotomayor? 😇
LikeLike
The gallows might be available. See the insurrection leaders for information.
At some blogs Jackson is being blamed. Should those folks be told she is not even on the Court yet?
I vote for Italian satellites to the next target. A really cool conspiracy should not go to waste.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think it is illegal, but it is unethical and grounds for disbarment if it is a clerk or, heaven forbid, a justice.
LikeLike
RE: “Is it illegal to leak memos and the like?”
On what basis would the leak be lawful? For a justice the leak would violate the oath of office. For a clerk it would violate non-disclosure agreements. Both would be obstructions of government proceedings, for which statutes exist.
LikeLike
I have yet to here any pundit, ANYWHERE, say that there are criminal penalties involved here.
A breach of ethics yes. A breach of the law, no.
LikeLike
Unless the leaker were to be stupid enough to lie when questioned under oath, or by the FBI
LikeLike
Then the crime would be lying to the FBI (ask Michael Flynn about that) or perjury. BUt the leak itself is not a criminal act.
LikeLike
That’s kind of what I said
LikeLike
YEs. I was agreeing with you.
Sheesh!!! Even when I agree with you you miss it.
LikeLike
FBI? Do they have jurisdiction over SCOTUS? I am not sure the do since they are in the Executive branch. Congress can impeach justices, but that was one time centuries ago. Other than that, I am not sure they have any power either.
The balance of power is that the President appoints and the Senate confirms.
Roberts said something about getting Court marshals to investigate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SCOTUS has its own marshal service, but they can request assistance from the FBI in investigations, just like any other branch of government.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The day is young and we don’t know any details yet.
LikeLike
Obstruction of government proceedings…gosh, that sounds so familiar. Has anyone really ever tried to do that?😇
I hope the throw the book at the bastard. Anyone who tries that should be tarred, feathered and sold. 😇
Meanwhile, since the ruling is due this month, the hoopla can start all over again when it does.
It is a terrible precedent to leak SCOTUS deliberations. Not for the leak itself as much as it politicizes the already highly politicized Court. Our other two branches use leaks to test the political weather or expose some improprieties, depending who leaked and why.
But this is unfortunate. As Collins said, if this is true, then Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied to her in her office. We can accept politicians lying because that is the nature of electability. (Campaign in poetry, legislate in prose is the line I like.)
So if the newly partisan Court can’t keep its fly zipped, we might be screwed for the foreseeable future. Except I think Democrats might keep Congress, or the Senate at least, as voters follow the lead of 61% of Americans who support Roe as far as first trimester abortions go.
IMHANEO
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nominees to SCOTUS cannot commit to a decision during confirmation. I think you know that.
They would be deciding a case before hearing the arguments.
After all, as I pointed out before, Dred Scott and Plessy were settled law before they were overturned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am sure Collins is familiar with that also so I suspect the question was more about their views on stare decisis or long term precedent.
In any case, I think this fiasco and serious breach of protocol will be another scar on the Court.
I also think the Republicans are now sweating what could have been a sure control of Congress. Which they would have been doing in a few weeks anyway.
Attacking women and tossing Roe, and its consequences, which 3/5ths of the country support, and have supported for decades. Not the brightest moves in my opinion.
One thought is that the Republicans should not have been so eager with trigger laws, particularly in states that lean purple but are controlled by the GOP. The effects and unintended (or intended, actually) consequences will come into play before June. Plenty of time before November.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, it’s six months till the election, and millennials have the attention span of a goldfish, so…
LikeLike
Millennials? I think the more formidable task is to convince women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The subset of older women who are single issue pro-abortion always votes anyway. It’s the younger pro-abortion women who don’t stay motivated.
And, of course, there are a lot of women who care more about the price of gasoline and groceries anyway.
I’m really more concerned about the pro-life women who might think the war is over and relax.
LikeLike
It’s PRO CHOICE!!!!
LikeLike
Not unless the unborn child has a choice.
LikeLike
Definitions change based on who you ask. It is NOT an unborn child until feasibility (by my definition). But is still a MOTHER’S CHOICE, as it is her body that has been invaded.
LikeLike
When a ship’s captain discovers a stowaway, he cannot throw him overboard. He must carry him to the next safe port before ejecting him.
Did you mean viability?
My threshold is self awareness, which can be demonstrated at about 4.5 months.
LikeLike
“Did you mean viability?”
Yes. Thank you for the correction.
“My threshold is self awareness, which can be demonstrated at about 4.5 months.”
And MY threshold is viability outside the womb.
It should never be Don’s threshold or Adam’s threshold that decides; it should be that of the mother in consultation with her physician. It is a privacy issue.
LikeLike
Nope for me alone, or you alone, or the woman alone. There is, or is not, a legal person, and that determination can only be made by the legislature. Law is made only by the legislature.
LikeLike
What would constitute an ILLEGAL person? I see your logic, but it raises the question I asked.
LikeLike
I don’t think the legislature has defined an ‘illegal person.’
LikeLike
That needs to be part of a discussion then. If there is such a thing as a “legal person” then common sense dictates there should be such a thing as an “illegal person”. -IMO
LikeLike
…”or the woman alone”…
But it should be her decision alone. It is her body alone. How about we dictate that after a set number of children sired, a man’s testicles be cut off (or a forced vasectomy)?
LikeLike
Whether the woman is alone will now be determined by the legislature, and not 7 dead judges.
LikeLike
…”the woman is alone will now be determined by the legislature, ”
Only if the legislature gives a rat’s patootie about the women in their constituency. But the GOP has proven to be “superior” in thought to the women they are supposed to represent.
LikeLike
So, you prefer a king?
I thought you believed in democracy.
I guess you think your opinion should overrule the will of the people expressed by the legislature.
I guess they’re right, inside every liberal is a dicatator hiding in the shadows.
LikeLike
“I thought you believed in democracy.”
3/5ths + want Roe to be the law. So let the GOP try to run rampant with daily excursions into forced pregnancy legislation, jailing pregnant women (it will happen) and outlawing the most effective birth controls (abortifacients don’t you know).
Keep touting “opportunities” and “laying back to enjoy when rape is inevitable”. That deep red (15 points for Trump and decades of Republican rule)state legislative district in Michigan just went Democrat because of statements like that.
Napoleon just became a Democrat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then codify Roe
Better, state by state.
But Roe is and always was unconstitutional. We just had outcome oriented justices who pretended otherwise.
Read Justice White’s Dissent
Read Rehnquist’s Dissent
The majority did not simply strike down the Texas law, or its application in the first trimester, it wrote new law to address the latter trimesters. That is outside its Constitutional authority.
LikeLike
I do think Roe should have been codified, and
I suspect it will be at some point. To have a mobile country like ours with 50 different laws regarding reproductive rights, both abortion and birth control, is just plain dumb. Where poor folks have no legal options and forced pregnancies are the norm?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why?
We don’t have one nationwide homicide law, or arson law, or shoplifting law.
We let each state go its own way and compare results and learn from each other.
If you impose one way nationwide, and it’s not the best, you’ll never know because you can’t compare.
LikeLike
Homicide is illegal in all states. This is
tantamount to being legal in CT but not MI.
Speaking of homicide, LA is running through a bill making abortion murder, including for the mother, no exceptions.
So here come the arrests for miscarriages. “Prove you wanted the baby or we will suspect you murdered him.”
Oh yeah, Midterms are looking better all the time.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/05/louisiana-abortion-bill-would-make-crime-murder/9656102002/
Abortifacient birth control methods might be murder. What women of child bearing age would live in a state where police could knock at night at check your belly?
I think this overreach will temper in a few years, but at a cost of botched abortions, jailed Moms, neglected and horribly disabled children. Women are the majority and you can believe they will not be ignored.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the impact on midterms is grossly overrated.
In Blue and Purple states, there will be no impact, as their laws are already beyond Roe, and we have 6 months for women to see that it makes no difference,
The only real change will be that Blue states will lose their ability to force their will on Red states.
That pisses off women in Blue states but they were already Blue and they’re always pissed off anyway.
LikeLike
Women in the red states are the most affected. You think they like for their uterus to be controlled by the state? And, for now, those women in those states are still allowed to vote.
Biden won Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin because Trump was an asshole that conservative women got rid of while still voting Republican down ballot. Now if the GOP is going to police the womb, those down ballot races take on a new perspective.
As I referred to earlier, the Michigan state house special election wiped out a Republican in a district that has been red since the first Thanksgiving. A rape apologist was pasted.
The GOP is ignoring the “win” against Roe, preferring to make outrage over the leak itself the real issue. As terrible as the leak was, the 50 year battle and subsequent “victory” over Roe is taking a back seat as women make their voices heard.
IMHANEO
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So, you prefer a king?
I thought you believed in democracy.”
Desperate. And it is you who has professed his disdain for democracy.
Considering that the majority of GOP legislatures actually represent a MINIORITY of its voters, my opinion has nothing to do with it. When the MAJORITY of voters are represented by a MAJORITY of the legislature, then things can se said to be “the will of the people”. Until that day, the MINORITY leadership will do all it can to control people they don’t approve of (women, LGBTQ+, people of color) and choose their voters.
LikeLike
Which states have legislatures elected by a minority of voters? Blue states seem to predominate in Gerrymandering
LikeLike
“Blue states seem to predominate in Gerrymandering”
Not really. But I suppose you believe that because of NY and MD.
I can point to FL, Wis., and TX as a couple that come to mind.
LikeLike
An LTE in Friday’s Pilot from a Mr Lovett makes an interesting point.
The leaking of this decision is clearly intended to intimidate the justices in the majority in hopes of changing their votes. That is unthinkable extortion of the justices.
Mr Lovett’s assertion is that ethics requires the minority justices join with the majority to make it a unanimous decision and thus dissuade future attempts at pressuring justices.
I think he is correct.
LikeLike
Good Lord! Now where in history has there ever been an attempt to intimidate leaders in any of the branches to change an outcome?
Seriously😇
Our Court is close to a wholly owned subsidiary of the Federalist Society. Are they that malleable?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Our Court is close to a wholly owned subsidiary of the Federalist Society. ”
And 33% sub-letted to TFG.
67% makes them wholly owned? 😇
LikeLike
“ 67% makes them wholly owned?”
Majority shareholder!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw Mr. Lovett’s LTE this morning as well. As I read it one thing came to mind: Jimmy Buffett.
He completely ignores the possibility I cited above in quoting Ross Douthat from earlier in the week. It could just as much been a leak to lock in a vote of a wavering Justice.
“Mr Lovett’s assertion is that ethics requires the minority justices join with the majority to make it a unanimous decision and thus dissuade future attempts at pressuring justices.
I think he is correct.”
Of course you do. Because the belief is it just had to be one of the justices who stand by principle and not the political winds.
And the idea of Justices giving up their principles and change their interpretations of the law just to save the integrity of the court is laughable. The integrity of the court was shot to hell when McConnell held up the nomination of Garland.
LikeLike